Administrator

Administrator

President Trump has already appointed a record-breaking number of federal judges, but his judicial legacy is even bigger than that: More than half of those judges replaced Democratic appointees...[Trump could be] giving conservatives an upper hand that would last for decades. The Senate has confirmed 17 Trump nominees for federal district courts, most of whom replaced Democratic appointees. Trump has also filled 16 vacancies on federal appeals courts (the last stop before the Supreme Court). Six of those appointees replaced judges who were nominated by Democratic presidents. There are still 140 more vacancies in the federal district and appellate courts, and Trump has put forward nominees for about half of them. There could soon be 100 judicial nominees pending in the Senate...Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have already set a breakneck pace for judicial confirmations. If Republicans still control the Senate after this year’s midterms, no matter what else happens, that pace will continue — and the impact will be felt long after Trump's presidency ends.​

This issue alone may be the biggest reason for Republican voters to show up in force to protect the GOP Senate majority this fall.

Administrator

because it doesn't really work that way, this is handled by the Secret Service, there's a difference between a credible threat and an off the cuff remarkthe Secret Service is aware of the tweet, which probably means they're keeping an extra eye on Barron

Jokeroo Immortal

because it doesn't really work that way, this is handled by the Secret Service, there's a difference between a credible threat and an off the cuff remarkthe Secret Service is aware of the tweet, which probably means they're keeping an extra eye on Barron

Jokeroo Enthusiast

Threatening the President of the United States is a felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".

Administrator

According to the law, the threat must be made "knowingly and willfully" and must take the larger context of the statement into consideration. If such a threat is uttered as a political argument or made simply in jest, it typically won't rise to the level of "credible threat." Regardless, defendants may not defend against such charges by stating that the threat was accompanied by religious or political statements.

For example, if a comedian makes a joke about killing the president, it probably wouldn't violate the law, even if it lacks good taste (although a comedian is still capable of making a credible threat). In fact, legendary comedian Groucho Marx was quoted in 1971 as saying "I think the only hope this country has is Nixon's assassination." It may have been an irresponsible comment, but one protected as free speech.

Administrator

If there’s peak meltdown from the news of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, it’s … Comedy Central. Yeah, the network tweeted how they felt about the retirement, along with Curtis Cook, a writer for The Jim Jeffries Show, said he wished Kennedy had been assassinated.

“I wish this Kennedy had been shot instead of the other ones,” he wrote on Twitter.

This is insane, folks. Liberals complain how conservatives treat everything as a zero-sum game. And yet, when they lose an election, they think everything is a slide towards fascism. If we enforce our immigration laws, we’re becoming like Nazi Germany. With the Supreme Court, liberals know it’s very possible that conservatives could have a solid majority on the bench for the next generation, set forth and handpicked by Trump. That drives them insane.

In light of the recent and tragic shooting at the Capital Gazette in Maryland, in which a shooter shot and killed at least five people at their offices, it might be best to not joke or even share that it would have been optimal for certain federal officials to have been killed because you either don’t agree with them or because it gives the other side a chance to shift a certain legal body. Elections have consequences—deal with it.

Jokeroo Enthusiast

According to the law, the threat must be made "knowingly and willfully" and must take the larger context of the statement into consideration. If such a threat is uttered as a political argument or made simply in jest, it typically won't rise to the level of "credible threat." Regardless, defendants may not defend against such charges by stating that the threat was accompanied by religious or political statements.

For example, if a comedian makes a joke about killing the president, it probably wouldn't violate the law, even if it lacks good taste (although a comedian is still capable of making a credible threat). In fact, legendary comedian Groucho Marx was quoted in 1971 as saying "I think the only hope this country has is Nixon's assassination." It may have been an irresponsible comment, but one protected as free speech.

so it comes down to the words used...groucho didnt actually say he was going to assassinate Nixon...just that he thought it was the only hope for the country..so it isnt an actual threat if i understand correctly
so i guess using that arguement..what fonda said was not an actual threat eh?...even though he knowingly and willingly said it
and there are multiple links for news stories where charges were laid against people that threatened obongo and his family and are serving time
but thats ok because it wasnt Trump or his family being threatened..2 tier law system in my opinion
protect obongo but not Trump or his family

Administrator

I just don't think the Secret Service cares who is in office, they do their job day in and day out, and I trust them, they've been doing their jobs for a long, long time

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;

Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and

Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.

A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.

The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

Jokeroo Enthusiast

I just don't think the Secret Service cares who is in office, they do their job day in and day out, and I trust them, they've been doing their jobs for a long, long time

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;

Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and

Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.

A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.

The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

Administrator

“Once upon a time, I was a liberal. Well, to be honest, less than a year ago, I was still a liberal,” begins Brandon Straka, the unlikely face of the new “silent minority” of Americans.

“I reject a system which allows an ambitious, misinformed and dogmatic mob to suppress free speech, create false narratives, and apathetically steamroll over the truth,” he says. “I reject hate.”
“These are the reasons why I became a liberal. And these are the same reasons why I am now walking away.”

The movement has been especially successful because its spokespersons have not been the sort typically associated with conservativism. Young and old, black and white, men and women, gay and straight—the campaign seems to elude stereotypes and pigeonholing.

The popular young conservative commentator C.J. Pearson, for instance, has given the movement a significant push by highlighting the Democratic Party’s racist past. “The Democratic Party is the party of slavery. The party of Jim Crow. The party of segregation. The party of the KKK,” Pearson tweeted Saturday.

“This is a testimonial campaign, a grassroots movement that is going to change the political landscape of this country.”
Some Democrats say they are still expecting a “blue wave” come November. If social media is any indication, there seems to have been a sea change.